If God doesn't exist, does anything have meaning or value?

[Portofino]

Yet human beings in general behave as if life truly has meaning and moral value…

Agreed. We certainly do.

So it evidently does matter that our lives have true value and meaning. Only somebody who has lost their humanity wouldn’t see a problem with the absence of these things…

Careful – that is a borderline ad hominem argument, I think. As may have been mentioned elsewhere, the difference of opinion also relates to how one defines “true meaning.” For many, “true meaning” can consist in the fact that, “I love my child, with every fiber of my being.” If true meaning can only exist when the *universe *loves my child, as well–a universe that is conceived as inanimate–then, in the minds of non-believers, there indeed cannot be “true” meaning. But not everyone agrees that the universe itself has to love my child, in order for my love for my child to have any value.As much as it may rankle a believer, there are many humanists who consider “man to be the measure of all things” (Protagoras). I am a man; this is important to me; therefore, it is important, period.

Think of the keepsake that is invaluable to you, but useless to others – a some little trinket that has no value in the eyes of others, but that is one of your most valuable possessions, because it was given to you by a loved one who is no longer here. You do not care that the world considers it a piece of junk; for you, it is more valuable than gold.

I think such a person is deluded, as happy as that delusion may be, or worst, dishonest. At least a Christian admits their desire for these things and pursues accordingly. Why would anybody be happy with the idea that it is not truly wrong to rape somebody? The only person that is happy is the rapist.

Rape is repugnant because it is a violation of our common humanity. Pain is repugnant, in general, and it is therefore repugnant to cause pain to others. Do I believe that the *universe * despises rape? No, because I am not convinced that the universe is aware of what rape is (or aware of anything, for that matter). We are aware of it, and we–insofar as we are human, and have to live human lives–are the measure of truth, as far as human conduct is concerned. Even if the universe is inanimate, I–so long as I live–am not inanimate. Without God, society still excoriates rapists. Without God, men still condemn and excoriate those who would seek to hurt their daughters, or their wives, or their mothers.

The main problem is not so much that atheists invent meaning and value in the absence these things, but rather the problem is when an atheist tries to argue that such is a reasonable substitute to objective meaning and value. This is what i find to be ridiculous. This to me is not so much facing reality as it is more a matter of ignoring the existentialist consequences of their belief; not taking the fact of our existence seriously (pushing it to the back of ones mind as one would say) and anesthetizing ones self with the pursuit of some form of pleasure.

These existentialist consequences of belief are based on a certain point of view; they are not the only way that a human being can respond to this question. The universe doesn’t care if I am good to myself, or if I hurt myself; so should I hurt myself, just because the universe won’t stop me? This kind of existentialist despair–if the universe doesn’t love me, all is lost–seems to me indicative of the thinking of a believer who has lost his faith, and not of someone who was never subject to the heightened expectations that this faith instilled in him (I will live forever; I am the crown of creation; the universe loves, honors, and cherishes me).

It’s also not reasonable, in my mind, to blame atheists for not believing in objective meaning in the way that you define it. If they’re not convinced, they’re not convinced. To say, “we cannot live without believing in objective meaning” does not for a moment impact the truth value of the proposition “life has objective meaning.” It is simply a pragmatic argument, which says, “if we don’t believe that it does, then the only thing to do is despair…”

And when non-believers don’t despair, they are called shallow (would you prefer that they despaired? ). It is puzzling to me, indeed. There is a Pascal’s wager for non-believers, as well – live our lives *as if * life had meaning, because–once we’re gone–we’ll be none the worse off for it. At least we will have enjoyed the miracle of the gift of consciousness – something highly rare; highly interesting; highly pleasurable.

 

[ReapReason]

To have “meaning” means that what is said or done leads to known results.

You are equally confused. True objective meaning is that which transcends subjectivity. For example human life has meaning and value regardless of whether or not humans themselves are ever aware of it.

 

[ReapReason]

Agreed. We certainly do.

Careful – that is a borderline ad hominem argument, I think. As may have been mentioned elsewhere, the difference of opinion also relates to how one defines “true meaning.” For many, “true meaning” can consist in the fact that, “I love my child, with every fiber of my being.”

That a person gives meaning and love to a parasite that has been detached from its host is simply the human fantasy that this object or parasite has some kind of significance. Its make-belief.

A thing either has objective intrinsic meaning or it does not. That you give meaning to something does not say anything true about the thing in question other than the fact that you like it; it is of use to you, you like the way your brain reacts to it.

Rape is repugnant because it is a violation of our common humanity.

Pain is repugnant, in general, and it is therefore repugnant to cause pain to others.

Objectively speaking there is no such thing as a violation. How do you get from repugnant to violation. By what objective standard did you arrive at this idea.

That you don’t want pain caused to you does not in any way imply that it should not be caused to you.

So what if you find rape repugnant. I find Marmite and jelly sandwiches repugnant. The fact does not tell me anything true about the moral value of the action in itself.

What i am interested in is whether its truly right or wrong. If you choose to believe that there is nothing wrong with it then i find that insulting to my humanity; i don’t care if you find it repugnant.

 

[Sair]

Perhaps it is like a dance with God where He leads and we follow. When we misstep we know that something is wrong. Sometimes when we are in so close a harmony we hardly feel God’s presence. We think we are dancing alone. I suppose we can stop dancing altogether. Perhaps that is when we become deaf to the music.

It’s hard not to conclude from this, that if lack of awareness of God is indicative of perfect harmony with life and the universe, then atheists must be closer to it than believers…

 

[Sair]

You are equally confused. True objective meaning is that which transcends subjectivity. For example human life has meaning and value regardless of whether or not humans themselves are ever aware of it.

What, then, is this meaning? To what does human life, specifically (never mind every other manifestation of life) refer other than itself?

 

[ReapReason]

What, then, is this meaning? To what does human life, specifically (never mind every other manifestation of life) refer other than itself?

The meaning and value of the Universe - of which we are a part - is subject to the intrinsic nature of the reality in which and through which the Universe is actualized and sustained.

 

[Portofino]

That a person gives meaning and love to a parasite that has been detached from its host is simply the human fantasy that this object or parasite has some kind of significance.

Well it does have significance to them. That is really the case, that they give it value. You are saying that value doesn’t exist unless it exists objectively, in the same way as gravity and the laws of nature. That is a particular way of looking at it, and it is certainly not pragmatic. If I appreciate a delicious soup, I don’t care that I am eating atoms and molecules, which do not objectively have flavor.

thing either has objective intrinsic meaning or it does not.

Money has no intrinsic value. I guess if money is intrinsically worthless, then there are no consequences to someone not having a job or a salary. Right? We are living human lives, as far as we’re concerned, not lives as matter in motion. A parent knows that there are people in the world that do not give a damn about his child. Nor does nature, as such, love your child. This is the great philosophical distinction between moral evil and natural evil. To give an example --a man who drowns a baby is reviled. A body of water that drowns a baby is blameless. It is inanimate and cannot be blamed. But as a human being, I don’t care whether that body of water loves the child or not.

speaking there is no such thing as a violation. How do you get from repugnant to violation

Pragmatically, rape is illegal. There is a reason why rape is illegal in most societies-- because it is a violation of the social contract. If I am a woman, I do not want to be raped; that makes for millions of women who do not want to be raped. As a husband, I do not want my wife to be raped; as a father, I do not want my daughter to be raped; as a son, I do not want my mother to be raped. That makes for millions of men for whom there is–even in terms of the most cynical self-interest–at least a handful of women whom they do not want to be raped. Now, pragmatically speaking, there is no such thing as “you’ll refrain from raping my loved one, but I get to rape yours.” This is the pragmatic reason why rape is illegal. Furthermore, our own emotions revolt against rape. Like it or not, emotions are non-removable from our moral sense. A father whose daughter has been raped is emotionally devastated, as is the daughter herself. It doesn’t take much humanity to apply that repugnance to the prospect of the rape of any woman who is not my daughter, based on a simple recognition that we are part of the same human family.

you don’t want pain caused to you does not in any way imply that it should not be caused to you.

Yes, moral evil versus natural evil. The fact that you don’t want to experience pain means nothing to a tsunami or earthquake. In human terms, however, our laws are crafted in such a way that that the all but universal human desire to avoid pain and maximize pleasure is served. If you commit first degree murder and are convicted, you will spend the rest of your life in prison. If you cynically want to murder, then I suppose you’ll be unhappy. But the natural basis of human sympathy and altruism is underestimated. Most of us do not want to hurt others, regardless of whether or not we believe in God. Much of that is natural–fellow human beings are our tribe. We care about other humans, just as–from the time we were children–we cared about our mothers. If so-called moral behavior were entirely contrary to our nature, it would not be possible.The prohibition against murder would mean nothing, because people would be violating it as frequently as the commandment thou shalt not eat.

what if you find rape repugnant. I find Marmite and jelly sandwiches repugnant.

Marmite and jelly sandwiches are not required by law, so you’re in luck Rape, on the other hand, is illegal. This is because violence of any kind is anathema to a civil society. It doesn’t work; as Hobbes said, a society that did not prohibit violence between its citizens would contribute to lives that are “nasty, brutish, and short.”
Now, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with a life that is nasty, brutish, and short. But it’s not what most human beings want – they want themselves and their loved ones to stay alive, and they want to avoid pain. If a person believes his life has no value, he is free to kill himself. But if he wants to kill others, because others’ lives have no value, then he’ll have the law to contend with (and their families and loved ones).

If you choose to believe that there is nothing wrong with it

Your fellow human beings are your “tribe” – indeed, your family. Blood runs thicker than water. But whether it is wrong for the universe – no, it’s not. The universe won’t stop genocide or mass murder; the sun shined just as brightly over Auschwitz, as it did elsewhere. Only human beings can stop it, and want to stop it – just as we want to stay alive, and want to avoid pain. The buck has to stop somewhere – for the believer it stops with God; for the non-believer, it stops with, “we are creatures that prefer life to death, the absence of pain to torture.” There are those of us who can theoretically disavow our desire for life and, yet, if angry predator were coming our way, would still run for our lives. It is in our nature to want to breathe. That’s where the buck stops, without God, and it’s a pretty reliable standard, all of our theoretical musings to the contrary. Buddhism bases its own entire morality on this truism – the avoidance of suffering.

 

[empther]

Originally Posted by empther

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif

To have “meaning” means that what is said or done leads to known results.

ReapReason babbled:
You are equally confused. True objective meaning is that which transcends subjectivity. For example human life has meaning and value regardless of whether or not humans themselves are ever aware of it.

If there’s no God, if there’s no afterlife,
then humans are nothing more than intelligent animals and human lives have no more meaning and value than the lives of cattle that we slaughter every day.

 

[ReapReason]

If there’s no God, if there’s no afterlife,
then humans are nothing more than intelligent animals and human lives have no more meaning and value than the lives of cattle that we slaughter every day.

If you want to believe that there is no God then that is your business.

 

[ReapReason]

If I appreciate a delicious soup, I don’t care that I am eating atoms and molecules, which do not objectively have flavor.

That depends on what you mean by objective. A thing can be objective in the sense that it exists outside your mind, or it can just mean that a thing is not imaginary; for example your mind exists objectively in the sense that its not just a facet of your imagination. You exist objectively. Flavor has a degree of objectivity if you understand that your “experience” of flavor “exists” as opposed to being just an imaginary significance that you give to an object.

Notice the contextual difference?

If there is no objective meaning or value, then the meaning and value you give to things is make-belief since you are not treating things as they truly are; something that Christians are accused of all the time.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Well it does have significance to them. That is really the case, that they give it value. You are saying that value doesn’t exist unless it exists objectively, in the same way as gravity and the laws of nature. That is a particular way of looking at it, and it is certainly not pragmatic. If I appreciate a delicious soup, I don’t care that I am eating atoms and molecules, which do not objectively have flavor…

Thank you for your well thought out reply. I’m especially happy to see it seems to tie into human experience and human behaviour.

…based on a simple recognition that we are part of the same human family.

I’m glad that this is something that is now recognized in many western states/nations. It was within the lifetime of my parents that the laws of the United States didn’t grant the same rights and privileges to indiscriminate of one’s background.

On the topic of rape, within the timeline of United States history equal recourse to rape wasn’t available to all citizens regardless of their background. Some forms of rape were not recognized until the mid 1970s. And there are still some advancements to be made; from speaking to rape victims it seems it’s still not entirely unusual for some one to blame the victim in various rape scenarios.

 

[ReapReason]

We are living human lives, as far as we’re concerned, not lives as matter in motion.

Its irrelevant what you are concerned with. You are just matter in motion, and to give physical reality any significance beyond that is irrational; unless you believe in God.

 

[ReapReason]

Nor does nature, as such, love your child.

Who said anything about physical reality loving anything?

 

[ReapReason]

Pragmatically, rape is illegal. There is a reason why rape is illegal in most societies-- because it is a violation of the social contract. If I am a woman, I do not want to be raped; that makes for millions of women who do not want to be raped. As a husband, I do not want my wife to be raped; as a father, I do not want my daughter to be raped; as a son, I do not want my mother to be raped. That makes for millions of men for whom there is–even in terms of the most cynical self-interest–at least a handful of women whom they do not want to be raped. Now, pragmatically speaking, there is no such thing as “you’ll refrain from raping my loved one, but I get to rape yours.” This is the pragmatic reason why rape is illegal. Furthermore, our own emotions revolt against rape. Like it or not, emotions are non-removable from our moral sense. A father whose daughter has been raped is emotionally devastated, as is the daughter herself. It doesn’t take much humanity to apply that repugnance to the prospect of the rape of any woman who is not my daughter, based on a simple recognition that we are part of the same human family.

Yes, moral evil versus natural evil. The fact that you don’t want to experience pain means nothing to a tsunami or earthquake. In human terms, however, our laws are crafted in such a way that that the all but universal human desire to avoid pain and maximize pleasure is served. If you commit first degree murder and are convicted, you will spend the rest of your life in prison. If you cynically want to murder, then I suppose you’ll be unhappy. But the natural basis of human sympathy and altruism is underestimated. Most of us do not want to hurt others, regardless of whether or not we believe in God. Much of that is natural–fellow human beings are our tribe. We care about other humans, just as–from the time we were children–we cared about our mothers. If so-called moral behavior were entirely contrary to our nature, it would not be possible.The prohibition against murder would mean nothing, because people would be violating it as frequently as the commandment thou shalt not eat.

People murder and rape all the time. What world are you living in? And most people don’t hurt other people because they don’t what to get caught. That in no way means that humans have a tendency toward altruism. What it might mean is that most people keep their maliciousness and greed down to the level of small social matters effecting only a small group of people. That people are smart about their selfishness does not mean that human beings are essentially good.

Might makes right.

A mutual agreement to not to hurt each-other is just an agreement. This agreement is about the fear of death and pain.

 

[Mahsiah_Waites]

Not to me it wouldn’t.

 

[Portofino]

People murder and rape all the time. What world are you living in?

Thankfully, I live in a world in which murder and rape is illegal, and where those who are convicted of such acts are forcibly removed from society.

Unfortunately, even belief in God is not enough to prevent people from murdering and raping, if that is their bent. The most twisted case of all is where rape is enforced as religious punishment – which does exist, in some non-western societies.

Murder has certainly been sanctioned by religion, as we all know. Christianity has (for the most part) finally disavowed murder in the name of religion. Not all religions have.

And most people don’t hurt other people because they don’t what to get caught.

Belief in God doesn’t change that. Indeed, how many believers are not murdering others, just because they don’t want to go to hell? This, too, is fear of punishment. If someone told them that heaven was guaranteed, and that God never gets angry, we would be in the same predicament.

We even have the added predicament of those who are afraid of the police, but who still murder; and of those who are afraid of God or of hell, but who still murder (convincing themselves, perhaps, that God would be all right with it in their particular circumstances, or will forgive them).

That in no way means that humans have a tendency toward altruism. What it might mean is that most people keep their maliciousness and greed down to the level of small social matters effecting only a small group of people. That people are smart about their selfishness does not mean that human beings are essentially good.

Humanitarian behavior does exist, nonetheless; altruistic behavior exists. Much of human cruelty comes through fear and mutual mistrust – and adult human beings generally mistrust other adult human beings (especially if they are strangers), and not without reason. I’ve seen the way adult human beings in an urban subway car soften when they encounter those they are not afraid of – babies or very young children; dogs or cats. They relax, smile and become lighter, more benevolent. This, to me, shows me the best of humanity – how much goodness or benevolence they have in themselves, when they are not afraid of their neighbor. As Bertrand Russell observed, “fear is the sister of cruelty.” There is much kindness in the world for animals and children, and for other adults, too – if we can overcome our fear of them. That’s why Emerson said, “infancy is the perpetual messiah”; and Jesus, too, had something to say on the subject. I’ve seen tight-lipped suspicion in a subway car full of strangers soften and turn to openness and even warmth and conviviality – because they are in the presence of a smiling baby, of whom they are not afraid. Everyone relaxes.

Perhaps that’s why humor is so important in bringing out the best in people – it can provoke that relaxation, that lightening of the air. I imagine that a diplomat without a sense of humor would be suffering from an occupational liability. If I were being assailed by a mugger, and had the skill or wherewithal to make even my assailant crack a smile, I could very well be saved. Christ never specifically said anything on the subject, but humor can turn an enemy into a friend, and dissolve fear and mutual loathing into relaxation and calm.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

On the one hand, I agree - there is no objective reason for anyone to despair simply from coming to terms with the very likely possibility that this life is all we get.

Not what I was getting at. If there was no objective purpose for despair to exist then it would not exist; henc why there would never be a reason to despair because you couldn’t.

On the other hand, as regards despair needing a reason in order to obtain, that is evidently false - there are many people who, tragically, experience suicidal despair even though their lives, from any outsider’s perspective, appear to be perfectly satisfactory by any objective measure.

How has this refuted what I stated? Just because an outsider cant comprehend the reason for someones suicidal despair does not mean a reason does not exist. Who is sucidical for no reason?

You’re quite correct that having the ability to behave in a certain way does not automatically confer a right to do so. But in the absence of objective purpose - and whatever else is claimed, it is quite clear there is no objective evidence for any assertion that humans have an objective purpose beyond the necessary biological tasks of liviing and reproducing - what is one to do but formulate personally, subjectively satisfying goals towards which one might work?

The very fact that we have an intellect that allows us to face ourselves is proof enough that we were made to do more than eat, sleep, and reproduce.

I think you are rather too quick to generalise about nonhuman animals (for whatever else we might be, we are animals). Have you never witnessed a dog playing frisbee with its human for the sheer joy of being able to run and chase something, even if that something is a plastic disc that confers no nutritional benefit? Dolphins have also been observed to investigate and play with objects in their environment, out of mere curiosity and then pleasure. It is clear from behavioural studies that humans are not the only animals who engage in activities purely for enjoyment.

I never said humans were the only ones who engaged in activites out of curiosity or pleasure; in fact I wasnt even talking about this. What I was saying is Humans are the only beings that have intellects great enough to question themselves and their very being. Our intellects are not satisfied with the finite things of this world because our intellects urge us on to know more and more and more. If we were made to simply eat, sleep, poop, and reproduce then there would be no need for the type of intellects we posses. When was the last time you saw a dolphine not being content with being a dolphine or a dog not being content with simply being a dog? If the type of reality you profess existed then no human in this world would ever feel discontent with living a life like an animal; just eating, sleeping, pooping, and reproducing.

However look at everything we do! We are constatly searching and striving for something greater than ourselves. We are constatly trying to be something greater than animals; even to the point were we sacrifice eating, sleeping, pooping (well maybe not this one all the time ) and reproducing.

The intellect alone cannot be the source of purpose - there has to be interaction with the environment in which said intellect exists.

The enviornment isnt the source of purpose either; it is an aid to helping us find our purpose.

How do you know that every extant thing is not the source of its own purpose? What need of a purpose for existing when a thing exists anyway?

Because nothing willed itself into existance. Everything has been created and thus has a purpose assigned to it by its creator. A picture does not paint itself and therefore does not assign itself its purpose. Only the artist is the source for the purpose of the painting. Now imagine if a painting had an intellect and a will. Then it could question and come to know its purpose but only if it turned to the aritst who made it.

You my friend are God’s art work. There is a purpose for why you were made; however you are not the source of your purpose. Only God who made you is the source of your purpose.

I’ve never claimed that we exist for a purpose - objective or otherwise. We just exist. Purpose is something we create for ourselves.

This can’t be the case since nothing exist’s without an objective purpose for its existance. Sure you can ignore that you have an objective purpose and you also have the ability to reject your objective purpose and make up your own subjectvie purpose to try and replace it; but your ability to do these things does not mean you have the right to do them.

Do you have a rational, objective reason for enjoying the taste of chocolate (if you do, that is)?

The rational reason for why I enjoy chocolate when I eat it is because of the chemical reacation my body has when I eat chocolate. The other reasons for why I enjoy chocolate beyond the chemical reactions is based on what chocolate does for me emotionally. Yet I also believe chocolate exists for an objective purpose other than bringing enjoyment to me.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

What does ‘living out’ unity with God entail? Especially since it would seem we have to be dead in order to attain said union. If the ultimate purpose of humans actually is to achieve spiritual union with or closeness to God, what is the point of any earthly existence? God created angels, supposedly - why bother to create physical beings? And why don’t those who believe that their ultimate purpose cannot be achieved in this life actually hasten to bring about their own deaths? After all, if nothing in this life matters as much as what is supposed to happen in the afterlife, why not hurry on the moment of transition? Believers apparently wonder why unbelievers do not simply commit suicide, since you claim we have no purpose for living; frankly, I would think the motivation for suicide is much higher for those who believe fulfilment can only come after bodily death…

I’m going to ask you to start with one question and then we can move on from there. You’re asking a lot of questions and frankly I don’t believe the character limit will allow me to address them or at least try to address them.

 

[Faithdancer]

A corollary but hopefully intimately related question- if God doesn’t exist, is there absolute morality? And a follow up question- if there is no absolute morality, what is there to prevent human beings from ultimately subscribing to relative morality?

 

[Portofino]

A corollary but hopefully intimately related question- if God doesn’t exist, is there absolute morality? And a follow up question- if there is no absolute morality, what is there to prevent human beings from ultimately subscribing to relative morality?

Technically, God could exist without there being an absolute morality. In equating God with absolute morality, one is taking the extra step of ascribing a definite attribute to God – namely, that God created an absolute morality, a moral law. A Creator, qua Creator, is not required to have done this.

What interests me more, in a way, is the question, “if absolute morality exists, is it discoverable? And with what margin of error? And why can’t human beings agree on what it is?” In that respect, belief in God has not helped but rather hindered the possibility of agreement, because no two religions believe in exactly the same God. Each is waiting for the other to convert

The following activities have been described, depending on the religion or the time period, as tenets of absolute morality, but have failed to be universally acknowledged as such by even human beings who believe in God and in absolute morality.

It is morally wrong:

–for women to have uncovered heads in public
–to consume pork
–to imbibe alcohol
–to mix meat and dairy
–to ordain women
–to be a practicing homosexual
–to eat beef
–to eat meat
–to masturbate
–to have sexual contact outside the context of a marriage, regardless of the level of love or commitment involved
–to disbelieve in God
–to disbelieve in Allah
–to disbelieve that Jesus is Lord
–not to observe Sabbath on Saturday
–not to believe that the Koran is infallible divine revelation
–not to believe that the Gospels are infallible divine revelation
–not to attend Catholic Mass every Sunday

One of the reasons we have separation of church and state is that the “common sense” of these moral propositions is non-demonstrable to those who don’t share the believer’s religious presuppositions; without that separation, rival religions would simply be warring with each for preeminence, in terms of legislating their moral code.

The only morality for which I see even a possibility of consensus is simple, bare-bones humanism – do not murder; do not steal; do not rape; do not abuse or torture. These prohibitions pre-date Christianity, to my knowledge, going back at least as far as the code of Hammurabi.